As reported by the BBC, a University of Rochester study found recently that men whose mothers ate lots of beef during their pregnancies had lower sperm counts than the sons of women who ate little or no beef while pregnant:
Among sons of mothers who ate a lot of beef, 17.7 percent had a sperm concentration below the World Health Organization sub-fertility threshold of 20 million sperm per millilitre of seminal fluid. The figure for the sons of lower beef consumers was 5.7 percent.
Lead researcher Professor Shanna Swan said the findings suggested that exposure to growth promoters contained in the beef eaten by the boys' mothers was to blame.
The researchers admit that they cannot pinpoint what chemical specifically caused the sperm damage. Europe banned growth promoters in beef in 1988 (they're so civilized over there), so a study of sperm levels in sons born after 1988 to beef-eating mothers could more conclusively pin this on growth promoters.
In the meantime, it's yet another reason to choose grass-fed, hormone-free beef. Or, hey, just skip the beef entirely (although when I was pregnant, after 14 years of vegetarianism, I had some serious beef cravings. Grass-fed beef cravings, of course.)
Ask Umbra on trash, toxics, and tots
Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change
Global boiling declares war on Thanksgiving
Comments
View as Flat
Biodiversivist Posted 7:21 am
29 Mar 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 2:22 am
30 Mar 2007
I teach environmental economics and blog at http://www.voicesofreason.info. I am a proud liberal, who stands on the shoulders of giants.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 4:47 am
30 Mar 2007
Permalink
Pathos Posted 10:16 am
01 Apr 2007
If all they do is kill sperm, I say bring on the growth promoters! If our children crave the pitter patter of little feet, let them adopt kids from countries where people can't afford beef.
Permalink
lorayoh Posted 11:40 pm
17 Apr 2007
Permalink
Pandu Posted 1:21 am
18 Apr 2007
Pathos,
One thing I wonder is whether the presumed environmental benefit of the reduction in fertility would outweigh the harm of a diet that is very high in resource consumption. I would be in favor of people eating much less meat, especially beef, even if it meant some additional children. It's a question of magnitude, but I would be surprised if the effect on fertility be very large, and I have no doubt that diet makes a big difference on our impact.
But to answer your question, reduced fertility is a bad thing in the perception of people who are trying to have children.
Regardless, I would hail the reduction in fertility of beef eating men as good news for the environment. Whether the effect or the news of it results in fewer people being born in families that eat a lot of beef, or a reduction in individual beef eating to preserve male fertility, this is a reason to smile.
Permalink